Unverified Artists

Artists that can't be verified one way or another will be deleted. This means if it can't be googled, or it's explicitly stated that this is a personally written song lyric it most likely will not survive long on Lyriki. Lyriki does host all forms of lyrics, but, it does need to correctly identify the songs regardless. If it appears a made-up band is releasing non-existant songs and we can't verify or move it to appropriate categories, it'll be gone. --Nanenj 11:51, 3 May 2006 (PDT)

Discography Standard

Short seems to have won the overall vote. Whilst long is still an option, it's now preferred to use the short discography standard.

* Year [[Artist:Album|Album]]
* Year [[Artist:Album|Album]]
* Year [[Artist:Album|Album]]

After trying to find a song on Lyriki, I've finally seen the usefulness of long discographies... however, I still think they clutter up the artist page, so perhaps we could find a compromise, like creating seperate long discography pages or using javascript to make the long discography appear when it's wanted. --MindlessXD 22:31, 3 May 2006 (PDT)

Recent Submissions

LyrikiBot now automates recent submissions.

Recent Submissions - Part 2

Two things I'd like to talk about here. First, I think the script that retrieves the amount of 'good content pages' should be changed. I don't know if it's possible or not, but if you can get the number for the "Template:C:Song" page from the Most Linked To pages, this will allow the stats to be more accurate (instead of using the Statistics page as the source).

Also, I think it would be best to limit the recent submissions to about 20 or 30, whenever people do a lot at a time, a lot of pages are put into that recent submissions, making it look long and unnecessary--268229 18:10, 3 February 2006 (PST)
Bump: Another example of why it needs to be changed. The stats page currently says there 6,029 "song" pages, the most linked to page says 6083 pages. Shouldn't the counter actually be accurate? =P Hopefully doing this is possible :) --268229 02:49, 8 April 2006 (PDT)

The best way of counting song entries in the wiki is to check how many pages link to the Songs category or the C:Song template. --MindlessXD 22:38, 20 June 2006 (PDT)

Featured Artist

Maybe a randomly selected artist of the week? With a picture and and selected trivia. Might be useful to a target for people to flesh out and finish. Bailey 18:09, 3 February 2006 (PST)

got an idea for improvment

im just writing the John Frusciante artist page and it taks allot of time to write the code any time, its seems pointless to write " ((artist:title|title))"
this site is all about lyrics any way so you should build a script that needs only the name of the album and the songs withen it and the site will set things up it self... it will be way more easy

Could you please make the code for those script available? --Attendant 22:31, 2 May 2006 (PDT)

Sorry, I misunderstood what those script were for (I thought they were not only capable of formating the text but also could add the pages). Does anybody knows if it's possible to interface with the wiki so (for example) one could create a script which sits on a client machine and add missing pages when it can? (the client part is very much doable with current amaroK facilities). --Attendant 23:02, 2 May 2006 (PDT)

Yes it's possible, simply post the information much as the wiki does anyways. Similar to how LyrikiBot does recent updates. --Nanenj 23:08, 2 May 2006 (PDT)

I can make PHP scripts that create pages via MindlessBot, but then I can't release a working script because I'd be giving away it's password. I think it might also be possible for me to use JavaScript to create pages... --MindlessXD 04:20, 3 May 2006 (PDT)

Well, I have succeeded at login in by posting the information as suggested but I still couldn't get adding pages to work... It may have something to do with the fact that the edit form uses a different encoding type (multipart/form-data) than the login form (application/x-www-form-urlencoded), though I'm not sure. If anybody can give me any pointers I'll be more than gratefull.

The edit form should accept application/x-www-form-urlencoded. Make sure you fetch the wpEditToken from the edit page, since I *think* this is required to creat a page. (I know it's required when editing a page.) Also you may need to make sure that you are not ignoring cookies. This is important in PHP, but I'm not sure if JavaScript will handle cookies by itself. --MindlessXD 19:35, 4 May 2006 (PDT)

You're completely right. I just can't believe I wasted so much time trying to figure out how to output multipart/form-data with ethereal :-\ ... Anyway, thank you very much, you've saved me a lot of time. Now that I have succeeded at creating pages the rest should be pretty straight forward. --Attendant 21:04, 4 May 2006 (PDT)

As a side note, I'll explain a little what the script I have in mind is supposed to do, maybe someone can contribute to the idea. Basically, the script will react to amaroK's track change notification checking if a page for the (now playing) song exists in Lyriki. If it doesn't (else there's nothing to do), it will fetch the lyrics from amaroK and (if found) create a Lyriki page for it. Things such as artist, song title, lyrics and any other information to submit will be verified and corrected as much as they can to ease the pain of future editors. Also, pages will be added in a special category so that they can be easily identified. Obviously, this script is not meant to be used side by side with the current amaroK Lyriki script (since that wouldn't make any sense) but with any of the other ones. --Attendant 21:56, 3 May 2006 (PDT)

What if there was a bot that monitored Recent changes for orphaned song pages (pages for which no artist page exists) and automatically created them. Then through the use of What links here it could add any other orphaned songs by that artist to the page and begin a discography. Alternately if monitoring the recent schanges page is too technical, it could be a php page that was pinged so that a user could create a song page and send the artist name as a query to the script which would then create an artist page.Olleicua 19:00, 26 July 2006 (PDT)

Verification

I'd like to see somewhere in the template for verification. That is, if I listen to a song and watch the lyrics, and they are correct (as far as I can tell), I can add a note saying, "I verify, on such-and-such a date." Then, as songs accumulate verifications, you could be more and more sure that they lyrics were correct, versus a song that someone might have entered and not been very careful about. What do you all think? -- Risser

I've thought about this before, the problem is that people may just pop on and say that they verify the lyrics of a song, but really they have no idea whether they are correct or not. Perhaps we could have a template for verification that says that the user has checked the lyrics against the lyrics on the CDs lyrics booklet or from the artist's website. On the other hand, if you think that the lyrics of a song are incorrect, you can always mark it for {{accuracy}} verification. --MindlessXD 14:35, 16 February 2006 (PST)

Yeah, I thought about that, but at some point, this is all about volunteers anyway. Back when AudioScrobbler was still voting on Mods, you had a few dorks who just "NO" voted everything, which was a royal pain in the arse. But, this is a Wiki, and we have to trust that most people are here for the good of it. Anyway, I think if you tag it with a sig, we'd soon see who was worth listening to and who was just tagging for giggles. I also agree that it should have a note about what it was verified against (artist site, cd book, by ear, etc.). --risser 05:52, 17 February 2006 (PST)

Also, I think that if we have verification messages, they should go on the talk pages, as to not clutter up the actual song page. --MindlessXD 15:25, 16 February 2006 (PST)

This makes sense. I may just start doing that. I'll start with Desperate Guys by The Faint. See how it looks and let me know what you think. Also, I think it's important that we stress that the lyrics need to reflect how the song sounds, not what it says in the book/site, because these are often abbreviated and occasionally wrong. --risser 05:52, 17 February 2006 (PST)

I've decided to tag any new page or update I make in the Talk page. For example, here's one I did where I got the lyrics from a site, then verified them by ear. I think putting the source is helpful. --risser 07:26, 17 February 2006 (PST)

It's been on my mind for a while, but while browsing through the recent changes page, it would be great if you could put in Verification in the Summary form. Otherwise it can be difficult to distinguish between a real talk page (where a problem may need to be discussed) and a talk page with just a verification note.--268229 22:51, 8 March 2006 (PST)

I will try that. I only recently just learned what the summary field was for. :) --risser 04:53, 9 March 2006 (PST)

Search plugin for Firefox

Yesterday I made a small Lyriki search plugin for Firefox. It's the first one I've made and I would appreciate if someone who knows this stuff would rewrite it. But it works to me, so I thought I could tell you about it. Do you think there is any use for it?

Year Category

How difficult is it to set up a new category? It might be interesting to have a year category, divided maybe by decades... --risser 07:02, 20 February 2006 (PST)

It's fairly easy, but I'm not sure if we want year categories. If we did, we would probably only categorize albums and not songs. (Genre categories have also been suggested.) --MindlessXD 15:45, 20 February 2006 (PST)

This'd also work for artists, but it'd have to be manually set in contrast to the albums just being able to done automatically because the year's in the page name.--Sidewinded 19:40, 17 June 2006 (PDT)

A few questions

I have a few questions. First off, is this the place to ask questions? If not, where? Second, the main page says not to copy from CD booklets and I assume this means that we also cannot copy lyrics from other lyrics sites or band pages. Is that right and if so, is typing out the lyrics ourselves legally any different from copying them from another site? I'm not a lawyer but I would think that the lyrics themselves are copyrighted, rather than the particular typed out versions, so this requirement doesn't do anything for the site legally and just creates unneeded work. I think other sites justify having copyrighted lyrics by appealing to "fair use" rather than claiming that they typed it out themselves. Third, I noticed some bands have an "Artist Info" with a link to the band website and only the band website, is that it or can we add descriptions or links to other pages (e.g., their wikipedia page)? Chiok 21:24, 24 February 2006 (PST)

Fair use is a large part of Lyriki's legal beliefs. Because we're not making any profit via advertisements with Lyriki. We actually have a larger claim to 'fair use' then some competing websites. The legal difference from copying other sites and books is not much, but, it's more to avoid possible legal hassle. If this site is built on a community of users passionate about music so much that they're willing to listen to the songs to post the lyrics instead of simply scraping other sites. As well with the non-profit nature of lyriki, it seems awful assinine to bring legal action. It's minute, and more of a request then an absolute rule. To be perfectly honest, there's very little way to tell on some songs whether you've copied it or written it from listening. I'm not sure if that answers your questions entirely or not. --Nanenj 10:20, 25 February 2006 (PST)

Here's how I look at it. I don't post anything I haven't listened and verified first. A lot of times, I'll use the lyrics from another site as a base, because this is faster than typing in every word by hand. But, I have yet to find one that was close to correct and didn't need at least some major revisioning. As for booklets, again, booklets often reflect what the artist intended, not what they ended up singing necessarily. Also, my understanding is, sometimes, like on GH comps, they employ someone to sit and type out the words, just like we are, and that dude probably has no better understanding than we do. So, verify before you post, if you can. That's my take on it. --risser 13:25, 26 February 2006 (PST)

I've been posting lyrics in much the same way. A bunch of the lyrics I've submitted are in the emo/screamo genre, and often times hard to make out without consulting an outside source (whether it be a CD/lyric book, or another lyric site). I don't see a problem with transcribing lyrics in this way. I've also went ahead, and remove a lot of the short-hand crap, like [2x] or [Verse] and [Chorus] notes, to make the lyrics linear and easy to follow. It just makes it a lot easier to copy the lyrics, and then transcribe the rest and write it down. --ahoier 05:19, 11 June 2006 (PDT)

I also have another question, what about Album Artists? Sometimes a compilation might have a special name for the collective group of artists, something like Various Artists, and each track might have different Artists. How are these classified, and will this database account for such VA albums? An example like Ministry of Sound, or Smash-Ups, would these Album Artists simply be put between parenthesis? --201.154.57.160 11:47, 2 March 2006 (PST)

I think we've decided on using (Various Artists) where it does apply. The actual songs are linked as by the artists that perform the song. If I'm understanding correctly. The album would be something like (Various Artists):Ministry of Sound (Year). Hope that helps. --Nanenj 15:58, 2 March 2006 (PST)

Artist name format changed, how to change it back?

I added Anti-Flag a while ago (before I created my username). Today I came in to add some more lyrics and update my formatting to the standard, and found that the band name has changed to Anti-flag (lower case F). This has broken some of the links from the song pages. How can I change it back? --Meiers3f 17:32, 11 March 2006 (PST)

In the future, if Anti-flag were what you actually wanted, you should do two things. First, create a #REDIRECT [[Anti-flag]] on the Anti-Flag page. Then, anyone who visits the latter will be redirected to the former. Then you can, from the Anti-Flag page, select "What Links Here" on the toolbox on the left, and it will show you all the pages that link to that page, so you can update them if you wish. --risser 19:15, 12 March 2006 (PST)

Thank you! Any idea why the F in Anti-Flag changed to lower case since the last time I was on? I would rather the Anti-flag page did not exist, and everything worked through the Anti-Flag page. --Meiers3f 7:18, 12 March 2006 (PST)

Samples

I know this is Lyriki, and not Sampliki, but I've always wanted a place to store Sample references; that is when one song samples or is sampled by another. Would anyone else be interested in seeing this added to the song data page? We could do headings like Lyrics, Sampled By, Samples, Quotes and what not. I know we've talked about having pages for Instrumentals, just for that reason. And we're also slowly turning this into a Discography database as well... Just wondering what you all think.

I actually completely missed this post, but, this is a great idea for those that want to put the effort in. I myself am horrible with tracking down that kind of information, but I see no reason for it not to be included. --Nanenj 21:28, 29 April 2006 (PDT)

Missing song name?

What if we know the lyrics to a song, but don't know the name?

You can probably Google the song lyrics to find the song name. --MindlessXD 20:20, 26 March 2006 (PST)

Enter the first (or most unique) line of the lyrics into google using quotes "", it'll give you the exact result of the lyrics on lots of other websites, then just read the artist name and song title from one of those sites ;)--268229 23:14, 26 March 2006 (PST)

It would be a cool thing to do it here though too, ie. search that would identify an actual string in the article text rather than at the moment when it just picks out words, you know Ufundo 03:20, 24 April 2006 (PDT)

Categories

This may have already been discussed but I can't find where if it has. It's about the categories. Is there a way that we could change it so the Album comes first in the Album category and ditto for the Song category. It gets confusing to me, especially in the larger categories looking for a particular Song or Album and having to read through the Artists names. For example, try going to the Songs:N category and looking for the Beatles song "The Night Before". If "Night" was the first word on the line instead of the middle it would be much easier to find. - Troy34 11:54, 31 March 2006 (PST)

Sorry, but I don't think that can be done. --MindlessXD 05:22, 1 April 2006 (PST)

I'm a programmer, i've never come across anything that can't be done. - Troy34 07:49, 1 April 2006 (PST)

OK, it probably can be done with a MediaWiki mod of some sort... --MindlessXD 13:39, 8 April 2006 (PDT)

Template or not?

Hi all. I'm confused about one little thing: Is there a consensus to use the SSong template at the top of a song page, or the non-template thing which folks have been adding to my recent submissions?

Right now I don't know which style to use, so I've not been putting anything. -- Mark 05:30, 7 April 2006 (PDT)

Welcome to Lyriki. It's best to use a template as it will make the pages easier to organise and categorise. I suggest you choose one of the two templates that you think would suit best and use that. If you choose the SSong template, I'd recommend for you to edit the pages that I've re-formated for you already (so the lyrics pages don't lose their consistancy).--268229 19:59, 7 April 2006 (PDT)

So the choice is being left to the contributor? Shouldn't there be an attempt to find a consensus? -- Mark 00:45, 20 April 2006 (PDT)

These are just some thoughts due to the inconsistency of content added to this wiki.

The reason I mention DocuWiki is because:

pagenames are AFAIK case-insensitive

when the account management is set up, you can dis-allow certain users from creating pages in certain namespaces(So, for example, all users could be allowed to create Help pages and such, but dis-allowed from creating other pages, which would be created by using the tools. They would still be able to edit all pages, though.)

Case-insensitive wiki software is low priority, easier tools probably somewhere in the middle, it'd be great to have some tools that make adding and verifying data a cinch. Page standards are very high up there. I think we've got a very good base, it just needs to be cemented until we find need to make additions. Archiving the wiki db actually should be done fairly regularly, so should we ever choose to move to another wiki system, that's taken care of. Now, all that being said. I'm not sure how much switching would improve things overall? The biggest thing showing up right now is just that Lyriki is very high maintainence, and without the efforts of you and 268829(?) it'd be a chaotic mess. You guys definately get a cookie :P. Which, hopefully, once we get some tools developed for certain things it'll be much easier to maintain and some of the current problems won't be as noticeable. --Nanenj 07:22, 11 April 2006 (PDT)

Case insensitive article titles shouldnt be a real priority because there should only be one proper capitilization for every song, album etc. - the one that the artist gives to it Ufundo 03:23, 24 April 2006 (PDT)

Meep, sorry :). Will poke Evelyn and see if I can get her to do the upgrade. :) --Nanenj 19:28, 24 April 2006 (PDT)

Promotion

I believe we need to promote this site more. There are still too few songs in the database. For this reason I have created a new page to discuss this and have some suggestions. Promotion. Lets see what we can think of. --Db0 13:33, 23 April 2006 (PDT)

Song Meanings

This is actually something I posted elsewhere in the early early days of lyriki, more when I was advertising for lyriki there was a post on another wiki (wikicities I think) asking if there was a wiki for song meanings and I suggested that lyriki could fit that role, this could be another possible use for the talk pages on songs, or there could be a namespace made. Input welcome. --Nanenj 21:29, 29 April 2006 (PDT)

I think this is a good idea and could go on the discussion page for each song. A problem that plagues sites like songmeanings.net is people who just post comments like "OMG11!!! I love this band and tHiS is my fAvOuRiTe song from ThIs album!" (Yes, this is how some of them talk). It seems out of the 20 people who post comments about the song, only 3 are on-topic. --Horvath 22:13, 3 August 2006 (PDT)

I agree. This would be a great feature. --Suspchaos 19:55, 30 September 2006 (PDT)

Foreign Languages and Soundtracks

As an example, how would I go about entering the lyrics for an anime series? AFAIK, there’s no procedure for entering soundtracks let alone multiple soundtracks under a single subject. Also, entering lyrics for a Japanese song would require 3 sections: one for the native script, one for the Romanized script, and one for the translation. IngisKahn 07:53, 2 May 2006 (PDT)

They'd follow the same rules for everything else. A soundtrack would usually fall under various artists. Perhaps if it's needed an (OST) tag can be applied, something to discuss anyways. As for three entries per song, that's really a bit much. I think I'd prefer romanized versions of the natural language as the default, but, the biggest problem with that is differing systems of romanization. The reason for not really wanting to support native script is two-fold, it not working as the title, and it would require an extra download to support. The translation would be optional, although some foreign language songs already do have the language then the translation. If there's overwhelming demand for it then it can always be added later. --Nanenj 10:09, 2 May 2006 (PDT)

Database dumps

I like the idea of a lyrics wiki, but I'm afraid that one day it will go offline. So it seems like a good idea to make a database dump each month and make it available for download (just as wikipedia does (and that's a site that will probably stay up until the end of time)) so that someone else could continue the site. This will also save a lot of bandwidth because users won't use a spider if they need the whole content of the site

So, I'm looking into this idea. I don't have a particular problem with it, but I'll have to monitor things to be sure that it doesn't get out of hand: the database is 150mb right now, and if I have a lot of people pulling down copies of it on a regular basis then it will start to eat up a lot of bandwidth. However, if I do a dump at the end of every month it shouldn't be a major problem. I'll work on setting this up and post here when it's good to go. --Evelyn 10:43, 22 August 2006 (PDT)

I don't know how you're compressing the files now, but you might try 7-Zip and see if its 7z format gets a better ratio. --MindlessXD 17:55, 23 August 2006 (PDT)

Far be it for me to resurrect the dead, but it'd be interesting to have the database in some sort of dump format. My experience working with the wikipedia dumps is that very few people are actually interested in them, compared to how many people use wikipedia. If anyone's interested in the technical details of accomplishing this, feel free to leave a message on my talk page - Ws 12:21, 2 November 2006 (PST)

Artist Images

Do you think we should put a picture of an artist, or the artist group, on the Artist page? It makes sense, and well, it would make the site more aesthetically pleasing. Lithium 02:13, 25 May 2006 (PDT)

I think if one really wants to put one on there they should be able to, Makes the artist page a little more appealing. --Sidewinded 17:16, 23 June 2006 (PDT)

I have no problem with this myself. I do believe it'd be a bit of effort to update most of the pages, but, anyone willing to make the effort should feel free too. --Nanenj 18:18, 30 September 2006 (PDT)

A big community

I've been looking in the internet, for a site like yours : I've found that http://www.lyricwiki.org does the same job as you with the same purpose. They are 500 users your are 250 users, why don't you merge your databases ? It's easy : both are using MediaWiki.

It's not that I think that your or they website is wrong, only that it would be a faster growing web site.

Bye see you soon.

Ben

We've kind'a come to the decision that Lyriki ignore LyricWiki and LyricWiki ignores Lyriki... LyricWiki got on the front page of Digg, Lyriki didn't... so it's mainly a matter of personal preference. Also most of the content on LyricWiki was harvested and bot submitted, but most of the content here is human-submitted (and that which is bot-submitted is automatically marked for review). --MindlessXD 20:14, 10 June 2006 (PDT)

Lyriki also does not agree with the tactics and commercialism behind lyricwiki.org. --Nanenj 14:30, 17 June 2006 (PDT)

Personally I don't like their style that most of their pages seem to have accuired, and while I agree a merge would help each site, I don't think it'd work out. --Sidewinded 19:34, 17 June 2006 (PDT)

A merge would end up with us having a lot of malformed pages, and would require ceding control of the site to a corporate entity and also mean including advertising on the site. These terms are very clearly unacceptable. --Nanenj 17:35, 30 September 2006 (PDT)

Unfortunately when you want to start a lyrics site, you need a big database or you won't be the first visit when a user is looking for song lyrics. This may mean initial bot submissions. Because LyricWiki has a large database now, they can convince users (such as myself) to use it primarily and update and include song lyrics where required. -- oticon6

That would be under the assumption that we're looking for users that want a free easy ride. If you're happier there, please stay there. Lyriki is doing just fine despite having half the number of users and less then 10% the number of pages. It's continuing to grow without needing the digg effect or rapid viral advertisement. It's also continuing to be the choice of many many users due to the higher quality of the pages that -are- here. --Nanenj 05:17, 30 October 2006 (PST)

lenght, artist, and wikipedia

only some questions...
1- wouldn't it be a good idea to put the lenght of each song in the album pages? maybe in the lyrics page too...
2- why put [[links]] in the member list of the artist pages? i mean, is there a "person page"?
3- is it ok to copy biographical information from wikipedia to put in the artist pages?
--Pedro Fonini 05:21, 22 June 2006 (PDT)

the length of each song can be added to the album page, there is a note stating that (m:ss) is the proper formatting for song lengths. As far as point 2, I've seen the members done both ways, some use wiki links, others don't. I don't know what the general concensus is, but if a band member is not his/her own band; then wiki links aren't that necessary. For example when I created the No Doubt page, I used inter-wiki links for each member, but they were later modified and only kept for Gwen Stefani since she has her pop-dance side project. Since this is merely a lyrics site/project, I don't know how necessary the members area is really though...And as far as point 3, I would think it's OK. You can view my contribs and see how I've created my past artist pages, but I just use a small blurb from allmusic, basically stating when and where they formed and what style of music they are. Nothing extravagant, since there are other sites geared towards biographies and what not...and well, usually if someone is looking up lyrics for an artist, they probably already know the biographic information, or just don't care either way (IMO ofcourse :P) --ahoier 08:13, 22 June 2006 (PDT)

1. The track length is an option, some people use it, others don't. If you can get the length, feel free to add it.

2. I only put links to members of a band if they have got their own albums/songs. I think people have just been adding it to every member since without a care :(

3. Depends how much you copy, I see people doing a small paragraph and then linking to the source for more information. As long it's done with respect to copyrights, it should be fine.

I'm all for track times on the album pages, as it adds a little more information to the page. But I don't think it's too necessary for track times on the Song pages...as it is, the track times are going to vary from person to person; due to the digital age of music and how some people "split" apart tracks after ripping and such. And then, what time would be put on the song page, the actual song time from the album cover/sleeve, or the track length displayed in the media player (I've seen albums where the track time on the cover/sleeve is different than the length on the actual CD..).--ahoier 07:27, 28 June 2006 (PDT)

I think the same time that's shown in the alum page should be shown in the song page... It's not "neccessary", but as you said, it adds a little more information to the page. --Pedro Fonini 16:20, 28 June 2006 (PDT)

Well, if I add my dog's name I will also be adding "a little more information to the page"... The point is that the track length is (as my dog's name) completely irrelevant to a page that's supposed to have the lyrics to a song. As it has already been stated by Ahoier, the track length can vary a lot even between "same versions" of a song. Now add to that the fact that lyrics pages can be linked by a number of different album pages (albums with different versions of a song, live albums, covers by other artists, etc...) and you'll find that it will only lead to even more unnecessary confussion. --Attendant 18:57, 28 June 2006 (PDT)

FINISHED pages

On my page I've been updating (sorta) what albums sections I've completed (albums or whole artists)
It would be nice to see a catagory for finished sections to see what's done and what not, it'd probably have to be done manually. Nothing serious here, just an idea. --Sidewinded 09:54, 8 July 2006 (PDT)

Finished pages...? You'll never find any of those in a wiki. --Attendant 11:40, 8 July 2006 (PDT)

I'm unsure how a page would be called finished, there's probably always more that can be added or stuff that should be changed.... Wiki is an practice in refinement ;) --Nanenj 19:07, 8 July 2006 (PDT)

I've just been putting "complete" or something like that in the edit summary, after I confirm lyrics. But yea, it's hard to say something is "complete", since someone later could come along with a better ear (hearing) and pick out new words and such :P I personally try to stick to the vocals up front, and not worry too much about background vocals/screaming and such, but in time, they could be added. heh --ahoier 09:55, 10 July 2006 (PDT)

I'll forward this to Evelyn and see if we can find a solution, thanks for the heads up. --Nanenj 19:05, 8 July 2006 (PDT)

It looks like this is a known issue with the mod_rewrite apache module I was using to make it so that wiki/Name worked: It fails on URLs with an & chararcter in them. I found a fix, but it doesn't work on apache 2.x (which we're using). Until I can find something that will work I've had to disable it.

Auto-generated pages

A little embarrassing for me to ask, but, how exactly are the auto-generated lyrics done? I agree with the way we've gone about it, so that things that aren't verified accurate are clearly labelled so, but, I haven't been able to evaluate how it's done myself. Very much not wanting to fall in step with competing wiki's where all the lyrics are bot done and people don't care about accuracy. --Nanenj 19:00, 8 July 2006 (PDT)

That would explain why only a handful of users show up with it ;). I wonder what the possibility of porting this to work with a player like Winamp or Foobar would be? --Nanenj 06:44, 11 July 2006 (PDT)

If it could be ported to any kind of usable form in windows, it'd make me happy >D IE: If I could just run lyriki.rb Songname and get results. :) --Nanenj but not signed in >D

you can already run lyriki.rb in windows, you just need to install ruby (http://rubyforge.org/frs/?group_id=167). now, porting the script to winamp is a completely diferent issue (don't know about foobar). the biggest problem is that winamp plugins are written in c (c++?) which doesn't provide natively regular expressions or an api to communicate through http (which is basically all the script does :\) --Attendant 20:11, 13 July 2006 (PDT)

Hmm, then it might already run as intended... well, partially seems it requires GTK and QT bindings? (QT does seem a little problematic on Windows. Haven't gotten to see how troublesome GTK is/might be yet.) --Nanenj 06:15, 14 July 2006 (PDT)

It seems that all songs generated that way which contains "the", "a", and "an" in the name are wrongly categorized under T and A. Could someone fix it? --Pietaster 07:43, 12 August 2006 (PDT)

A new issue involving autogenerated pages is coming to my attention. It seems somehow googleads are making it into some of the autogenerated pages, if this can be fixed, I'd be very grateful. The ad-code being inserted on lyriki pages is potentially harmful. --Nanenj 13:54, 30 September 2006 (PDT)

Can you please point me to one of those pages? --Attendant 14:49, 30 September 2006 (PDT)

Problem

The Lyriki seems to have problems with ampersands. For example, the page Belle & Sebastian links to a non-existant page Belle, making it impossible to recover the data on the page. This also happened with The Mamas & The Papas, so I am confident the problem is the ampersand.

Chorus'

Alrighty, this is a bit of a matter of opinion, but I was wondering if u you guys like having the chorus repeated in full, or rather putting (chorus),(chorus x2), etc.
Personally I don't like having to refer back to the chorus, because on some artists they may change parts of it slightly, and I'm trying to keep the lyrics as close to the song as I hear it.
Tell me what you guys think --Sidewinded 09:56, 12 July 2006 (PDT)

Hosted Files

Something I've considered, but, would not implement without passing it through the crowd here... I've thought about trying to make contact with bands and asking permission to host one or more tracks, DRM-Free, etc. Chances are not many would jump at it. But, it might increase Lyriki's popularity, and to the bands that want the exposure, supporting Lyriki and 'free-music' would bring lots of positive exposure me thinks. If anyone on Lyriki knows bands that would like to become more known, that would be a great place to start. The downside to this, is some could interpret it as Lyriki being a more commercial entity (which is bad! :P). There's no money going around in this idea, just asking permission to post MP3 or OGG files of certain tracks, if yes, we do, if no, then we leave it be.

Some might be asking if Lyriki is already legal on the text side, why do we need permission for the OGG or MP3, can't we use the same protections? Unfortunately, hosting a .ogg or .mp3 has different implications than plain text and in some cases has even been determined to be broadcasting. This could be another downside, even if we get permission, we may, at a later date, be asked by some place to pay licensing fees for all the 'broadcasts' we've done of hosted songs. I'm looking into this as well and this -will- not happen if that's required. Anyways, after reading all that, the core question is just whether people like the idea of trying to get bands behind Lyriki and have their songs showcased here, or would rather just not bother. --Nanenj 09:52, 20 August 2006 (PDT)

The idea is interesting but I personally think it’s beyond the scope of lyriki. Usually bands that wish to showcase a track will either offer it as a download on their official website or as a stream. People generally don't come to this website to find/explore new artists, there are plenty of other websites that cater to that service. --Horvath 20:00, 20 August 2006 (PDT)

I agree with Horvath. Most of the bands that would give you permission are independant artists that already have their music hosted on sites with the specific purpose of promoting independant artists. However, as long as Lyriki has bandwidth to spare, there's no reason not to host files if the artist gives permission... it just wouldn't be a major focus. --MindlessXD 16:25, 21 August 2006 (PDT)

Another thought following "The downside to this, is some could interpret it as Lyriki being a more commercial entity (which is bad! :P)."

If other users start to upload songs, someone will have to police them to make sure that they are freely useable on Lyriki (unless you can limit uploading music files to admins only or something). --MindlessXD 16:37, 21 August 2006 (PDT)

It would never be a major focus, just a 'perk'. Something along the lines of a featured song on the front page promoting an independent artist. The uploading of songs would not be facilitated by the wiki software, just a link inserted to a location on the host :). --Nanenj 11:04, 23 August 2006 (PDT)

Genres Genres Genres!!

I suggest there should be genre pages, for example: Alternative rock, which would explain the genre and have a list of groups. I also suggest a genre links to be on the Main Page, so new users can find the groups/lyrics by genre. Maya Levy 01:18, 21 September 2006 (PDT)

The biggest problem is that different people clasify music in different genres: one person's Rock is another's Metal. This isn't very practical unless there's a standard for genres. If there's a site that has a genre database, we could refer to that when categorizing, but I don't know of any. --MindlessXD 14:34, 21 September 2006 (PDT)

All Music Guide has this information in their artist pages. Btw, they consider Rock a genre and Heavy Meta a style (or a subgenre). --Attendant 15:09, 21 September 2006 (PDT)

Heh, shows what I know about genres... I suppose we could use AMG's genres. --MindlessXD 19:53, 21 September 2006 (PDT)

Is up to the community on this one. I personally think that there are many bands that release music in a variety of genres despite having one they normally stick too makes it hard to do genre reliably. --Nanenj 00:23, 23 September 2006 (PDT)

There is also the fact that bands don't always fall under just one genre. Bands evolve, so maybe instead of tagging the bands/artists themselves, perhaps tagging individual songs? This would take much longer, obviously, but could potentially be a great idea. --Suspchaos 20:04, 30 September 2006 (PDT)

My stance has changed on this to a formal 'no' vote. Genre is too opinionated, and it's not something that you can clearly classify. Classifying songs would take much too long, and it doesn't lend much value to either the discography information or the lyrics themselves. As with most everything on Lyriki, it's still a community thing, but, all things considered genre doesn't offer much value for the work invested. --Nanenj 13:00, 7 October 2006 (PDT)

I have many suggestions

That website is where I'd like to see this one, except that one is metal only, only bad thing

The artist page for a band is a good place to add the information you suggest. The genre thing has been discussed time, and time again. It's just very hard to absolutely categorize a band, album, or song as one specific genre, as people usually have their own interpretation of what a song is and many are ambiguous. So, with the exception of genre, feel free to add whatever information you want to the appropriate level. It's why we have artist, album, and song pages. Information that applies to the band as a whole goes on the artist page. Information that leaks down and is specific to an album, goes on the album page, and then information on the song, goes on the song page. If you read the rest of the talk page, you can see the comments on genre already. I'm formally against it due to how little value it actually adds vs how much more work it will be moderating disputes about genre. There is however an authoratitive source of genre (even if it's wrong sometimes) in AMG. If the community wants to start adding genre, I can see that as the only workable solution for avoiding lots of conflict and dispute. --Nanenj 05:12, 30 October 2006 (PST)

yeah but once you guys get more bands, you'll get some bands with the same names, and you'll have to make sure people know the difference, I know it's not something you should do right away but once you guys get more complete --Xfollowthereaperx 23:43, 31 October 2006 (PST)

We already have methods for addressing bands with the same name in place, it's just not encountered often enough for most people to be aware of it. It should be in the guides however. I'm not sure what you're addressing with your 'but', perhaps the genre issue. People should be able to tell the difference anyways if the proper information is put on the artist page. Even if we adapted the same method we've chosen for some other articles that have namespace collisions (just append information.) it would still be rather clear and easy to find the particular band you were looking for. :) --Nanenj 08:33, 1 November 2006 (PST)

Foreign Language 2

What is becoming quickly annoying is the level of Japanese support. I have found it possible to edit a page and include Japanese, but upon saving, if the page edit is reopened every Japanese character is replaced with a question mark. Upon following a link on said page (links are all in Roman letters), and creating a page, all of the Japanese on the original is broken, an any other pages I have worked with appear to be broken. But hard refreshing itself won't turn the Japanese into question marks. This has become beyond frustrating, especially as I wanted to edit these articles to make the original script more accessible, which is something I wish were more common when looking for my foreign music lyrics online as it is. Is it not possible to fix this?
Matsu 20:25, 7 December 2006 (PST)

We'll definately want to look into this. I apologize for any frustration this has caused you. If you know of or know where we can find a solution we'll be very happy to implement it as soon as possible. --Nanenj 14:39, 11 December 2006 (PST)

Statistics

Is there any way to change some of the statistics parameters? According those we have only 9,000 "valid" articles, even though we have long ago surpassed 20,000 lyrics pages. It seems the problem is that the threshold for short pages is to high, as it currently lists over 23,000 pages... --Attendant 06:16, 10 December 2006 (PST)

Looks like those aren't actually lyrics at all though, so why would we have them in the stats? A little sketchy isn't it? We should prolly change that before someone calls us on it. Just click the links from short pages and you'll see what i mean. --88.198.180.62 23:38, 10 December 2006 (PST)

You're as wrong as the statistics. The majority of those pages are lyrics. Look from offset=2,000 with 500 results: there's 100 album pages and 400 song pages. Now considering that these is only a 500 pages sample from the over 23,000 pages listed as short and that since those pages are sorted by ascending size, the further you go the shorter the chance they correspond to album pages (skip over to offset=10,000 and you'll found only 25 albums and 475 lyrics pages) I think it's pretty obvious that we're not stretching any numbers.

For the record, when I said we had over 20,000 lyrics I was referring to the fact that we have over 20,000 articles under the Song category. --Attendant 10:09, 11 December 2006 (PST)

I would be happy to change the threshold for what constitutes a "short page", if I could, but I'm not sure if it's even possible to do so. The other problem is that we'll start getting things counted as being full pages that shouldn't, but it bears looking into. --Evelyn 12:58, 11 December 2006 (PST)